Alta4ever

It keeps lobbists and vested intrests from having over representation in the party do to contribution sizes. That is precisely the problem the Americans are having. Freddie Mac and Fannie May hevily donated to politicians that they new would alow them to keep operating in the hap hazard fashion that led to the housing bubble and economic down turn that it created.

If they get 40% of the vote then that 40% shoulbe beable to decide to fund the party voluntarily, not be forced to through their taxes.

I ask you this how these entities function creat policy run elections and function prior to polictical welfare being brought in by Chreiten. The system seemed to work pretty good. He was just trying to knee cap paul martin, it had nothing to with giving individual citizens more opportunity.

I think that a smaller spending limit in campaign on the national level isn't such a bad thing. I still would want to see donation limits imposed though. The limit could be raised to 2000 at both the eda level and the national.

Wealthy voters have no pull the donation limits are $1100 for the eda and $1100 nationally. In fact the average donation to all 3 parties is less then $100. The different between the fundraising numbers is the size of the Donor base. Why should they all receive funding? They should require their base to pay for their campaigns, not the taxpayer. If you have a policy idea you should be the person responsible for selling to the masses not the taxpayer. So again I ask why this is necessary?

I doubt it, liberals, NDP and bloc MPs are all to some degree on the left side of the spectrum, they are able to work with each other to pass legislation based on some kind of common ground. The conservatives have no like minded allies if they want a truely conservative bill passed they do have to be willing to go to the polls over it, because there is no allie in the commons to help them pass it, so they have to put it to the other parties. If this is an issue that you feel so strong against the conservatives about, are you will to let the electorate decide this for you in an election. IF the bloc NDP and liberals are right in their stance then they should welcome the election as a way to defeat the conservatives.

Are you sure that they aren't just interestrd in passing legislation in a House of commons where they have no natural allies.

They have no rational reason, it is a completely emotional decision based on their veiw of what marriage is. I would imagine that for those who have the emotional reaction to that it comes from their faith and what they beleive the definition of marriage is which extends from that faith.

So are you saying that conservatives can't feel strongly about their crime bill? If Haper feels strongly enough about most peices of legislation that he is willing to fight an election over anyone of them, it is his choice, his mandate from those who voted for the conservatives is to pass their legislation. Not the liberals NDP or Bloc.

As a society we need to move past this both sides should be able to say their peace without resorting to threats and hate speech. True tolerance would suggest that these arguements would be handled diferent and compromise would be made but neither wants this. Both groups want total acceptance of their position.

They voted for change but the question is what means. Change as in govenment reform. Change as in change of ideology for the nation. Or change as anybody but GWB or another republican. Change is a very broad term. What is ment by change? What did the electorate mean by change. It will be interesting couple of years as we see how Barack intriprits his mandate.

I was posting out of frustration which was my mistake. There is a bit of a double standard these people probaby will never be prosecuted for these statements but if had been the opposition that made these statements you bet their would be an investigation and they would all be charged and convicted of uttering hate speech.

Thats the point right their if its something you don't beleive strongly in then you should be willing to fight an election over it.

We have heard that before

My hope is that he ends up governing like bill clinton did. I do have a fear that he will try to implement some of his more radical ideas and spend us into another depression.

I'm no legal expert but I doubt you would ever win any kind of court challenge on this. The best way to fix it is through a parlimentary vote. I would much rather see laws delt with this way anyway. The corts were never ment to write law, or fix laws. If they do strike down a law because it is unconstitution it should be sent back to the parliment to either be re-written or removed from there. Creating law and removing law is the responsisblities of the legislators not the judge.

Would never happen, current law allows for it to happen and you can't apply new laws retroactively. If you were to challenge it in court i would think that it would have to have some precedent from the past which wasn't amended when the elections act was amended, or find something to show the government of the day had no authority to enact the law.

You know what I appologise this didn't turn into the debate I wanted it to. I was looking at where these votes were and linking them to political ideologies I would assume they support due to very basic profiling. To debate a human reaction, group a won't tolerate group b and vise versa, and they hypocracy of one side being able to spit out hate speech, because they lost. It was never about the subject of the vote just the reactions of group a and group b and how one can't respect the other even though they both claim higher moral value. Again sorry I never should have bothered I was wrong to have even tried. Thanks for the humbling guyser and marksman, I can say lesson learned, not a good way to try to start a debate.

I am only speaking about the $1.95/vote paid by the taxpayer.

Thank you, for the real debate and keeping it on topic. The purpose of this exercise was to show that tolerance is something that we very rarely see from either side. What people are looking for is really acceptance not tolerance for the view, belief, or group. Tolerance is the code word for acceptance, and when people get the acceptance of their opinion belief ect. we have this type of response.

How to do you hold them accountable for something that is legal? The political party welfare must stop.

Provide proof that that discredits whats posted here? What political stripe do most who preach tolerance come from? What would be the resonse if it were the religious groups saying this of any other group what the response be, and what political ideology would they be assumed to be a part of? That is the hypocracy.

the party at the door who is able to convey the better idea. CPC spending hasn't bought them a majority has it? They have been spending and putting ads in front of people since the last liberal leadership convention and they couldn't do it. It Edmonton Stracona, Rahiem Jaffer had way more money then the NDP candidate, but the NDP candidate went door to door and pushed her ideas, Rahiem didn't he bought ads and spent on advertising. Who won?

We are not working with companies, we are working with policitcal parties.

The people that are used as examples in the artical.